2010 (3) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. At the outset, Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Department makes the following preliminary submissions in regard to the question of maintainabilily of reference made to the Larger Bench :- "(1) The decision of the Larger Bench will have no impact on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the parties concerned is already settled in view of the decision of the CESTAT Chennai in the parties own case as reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 149 (Tri. - Chennai) in the case of M/s. Premier Footwear Products (P) Ltd. Pollachi v. CCE, Coimbatore. The period covered in the case settled by the CESTAT Chennai is 15-12-1998 to 31-3-2003. Therefore the period under consideration in this case i.e. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. The stay application, as well as the appeal is pending for disposal. (5) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Phoenix International Ltd. v. CC, Raigod [2002 (134) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.)] was already in the public domain when Final Order No. 817-819/2006 dated 31-8-2006 came to be passed. The facts in both the cases are also dissimilar. The non-consideration of this judgme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no bearing on the disposal of the appeals. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel, Shri Balasubramanian appearing for the appellants who confirms that there was no clearance of strap-plaps during the normal period. 5. Considering the submissions made and taking note of the fact that the impugned goods have not been cleared during the normal period of limitation and that the Division Bench has ....